Personal Injury

In an effort to keep its children safe and restore public confidence, Queensland has become the first Australian jurisdiction to pass legislation creating a publicly accessible register of convicted child sex offenders.

Dubbed “Daniel’s Law” after Daniel Morcombe, the Sunshine Coast teenager abducted and murdered in 2003, the law demarcates a significant shift in the way that Australia manages child sex offences.

Under the new framework, Queenslanders will be able to access information about child sex offenders living in their communities through a three-tier public disclosure system. While the law has been welcomed by many families and child safety advocates as a long-overdue measure, it also raises a complex web of legal and ethical concerns particularly around privacy, proportionality and rehabilitation.

Background

Daniel Morcmbe’s abduction and murder in 2003 was one of the most significant criminal cases in Queensland history – triggering nationwide debates about child protection, offender management, and policing. Although the offender, Brett Peter Cowan, was ultimately convicted, the case exposed just how ineffective the management and monitoring of sexual offenders was following their release.

As a result, successive Queensland governments have faced mounting pressure from community groups, including the Morcombe Foundation, to bring about reform. In response to the Morcombe family’s advocacy, Premier Steven Mills announced earlier this year that the government would legislate to create a public child sex offender register.

Unlike previous “community protection” initiatives, Daniel’s law ramps up measures – giving members of the public direct access to information about certain offenders – a prerogative previously reserved for law enforcement.

As the bill awaits referral to a Parliamentary Committee for review before coming back to the Parliament, the Government looks set to deliver on its promise for Daniel’s law to come into operation before the end of the year.

The Legal Framework:

The new legislation introduces a three-tiered system of disclosure, structured to balance community safety with offender rehabilitation and privacy rights:

Tier 1: a publicly available website for reportable offenders who have failed to comply with their obligations, and whose whereabouts are unknown to police. The offender’s full name, photograph and year of birth will be accessible by members of the public, but they must agree not to misuse the information.

Tier 2: online application for Queensland residents to view photographs of reportable offenders living in their local area.

Tier 3: online application for parents and guardians to confirm whether a particular person who has had, or will have, unsupervised contact with their child, is a reportable offender.

For the purposes of the bill, a reportable offence refers to the definition given in the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 and includes offences like grooming of a child under 16, indecent treatment of a child, and making or distributing child exploitation material.

To ensure that the bill does not facilitate vigilante-style conduct or conduct that could give rise to intimidation or harassment, it is supported by three new offences prohibiting misuse of information accessed or obtained using the public register:

• an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years targeting conduct intending to, or inciting others to, intimidate or harass another person they believe or suspect is an identified offender;
• an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 3 years targeting conduct that is likely to, or likely to incite others to, intimidate or harass another person they believe or suspect is an identified offender; and
• an additional offence carrying a maximum penalty of 3 years for the unauthorised sharing of information obtained through the public register.

The Argument For 

According to Premier David Crisafulli, Daniel’s Law it is an important step in restoring public trust and consolidating child safety.

“While no system will ever be perfect, we want to give parents the best possible chance to protect their children.

“We are putting the rights of victims and parents ahead of the rights of offenders.” “Premier Crisafulli said.

His opinion is echoed by other proponents of the bill who believe that parents and carers have a right to know who lives in their community so that they can adequately protect their children. This sentiment is shared by the broader public, with opinion polling consistently showing strong public support for offender registers, and child sex offences being widely regarded as among the most heinous crimes. The Morcombe family, in particular, have argued that Daniel’s Law empowers communities and creates accountability for government agencies – aligning the law with community expectations.

The Argument Against

While there is overwhelming support for the bill from the public, the prevailing sentiment from advocacy groups, legal academics and criminologists seems to be one of scepticism.

International Context

Elucidating the international approach to child sex offenders helps to contextualise this scepticism, given that much of the inspiration for Daniel’s law is drawn from similar models in other countries.

In the United States, Megan’s law was enacted in 1996 following the murder of Megan Kanka. It requires individuals convicted of sex offences to register with law enforcement and authorises the release of information about registered sex offenders to the public, often through websites or other means. The law has been widely used but remains controversial. While it may have a small general deterrent effect on first-time offenders, it is generally seen as ineffective in reducing sex offender recidivism and may even hinder reintegration and treatment outcomes.

Similarly, in the United Kingdom, Sarah’s Law was introduced in 2010 following the murder of Sarah Payne. It enables parents and guardians to request information about individuals with access to their children but does not provide full public disclosure like the US system. While it is difficult to accurately ascertain the effectiveness of Sarah’s law, given its relatively short history, critics argue that it has no significant impact on recidivism or harm reduction.

Queensland’s model sits somewhere between these approaches: more expansive than the UK system but more limited than the blanket US-style registers. The effectiveness of Daniel’s Law will remain to be seen, but based on evidence from reviews of other registries, it is unlikely to fulfil its desired outcomes and more likely to raise unintended consequences and undermine key principles of criminal justice.

Privacy

One of the biggest concerns around Daniel’s Law is its potential erosion of privacy. By mandating the disclosure of personal details such as name, photo and suburb, it is directly at odds with Queensland’s Human Rights Act 2019, which recognises the right to privacy and reputation.

While the government will argue that the limitation on privacy is reasonable and demonstrably justified, pursuant to s13 of the Act, it is not clear whether its stated aim of child protection is sufficient to satisfy the proportionality test.

Concerns around privacy are amplified when the risk of misidentification is considered. If innocent members of society are wrongfully registered, or if their names and physical likenesses are mistakenly used, then there is an enormous scope for reputational damage and legal liability.

Deterrence

There is a broad consensus that registration schemes have no impact on rates of sexual offending.

According to US based research the majority of sex offences are committed by first-time sex offenders, and when perpetrators are caught, the likelihood of reoffending is very low.

Similar conclusions have also been reached in Australia. Reviewing the Sex Offenders Registration Scheme, the Victorian Law Reform Commission found that on the subject of deterrence:

The Sex Offenders Registration Act is based on the assumption that sex offenders are less likely to re-offend if they are required to comply with reporting obligations under a registration scheme. However, the existing limited research data is equivocal as to whether registration is an effective means of reducing re-offending.

Research from the Australian Institute of Criminology substantiates this conclusion, finding that while public sex offender registries may have a small general deterrent effect on first-time offenders, they do not reduce re-offending.

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation and reintegration constitute a crucial aspect of criminal justice. Any public registration and notification scheme may undermine this, particularly for lower-risk and juvenile offenders.

Once public offenders are publicly identified, housing, employment, and social support become significantly harder to obtain. If they feel as though they are the subject of harassment, victimisation and exclusion, they are unlikely to reintegrate and contribute to society positively and are instead exposed to conditions that are conducive to reoffending.

False Assumptions

In most cases, sex offenders are known to the victim before the offence, typically being family members or acquaintances. With this in mind, registration does not significantly impact the ability to identify who is a risk to the general community.

Even worse, communities may over-rely on registries, and police attention could be wrongly diverted away from likely perpetrators and focused towards those less likely to pose a

Vigilantism

Another pertinent objection against the use of public registers is the potential for vigilantism. Past experiences overseas have seen offenders harassed, assaulted, or forced into homelessness.

Daniel’s Law attempts to address this by criminalising the misuse of registry information. However, the practical enforceability of these provisions is uncertain —once information is widely disseminated online, practical control is limited.

Looking ahead

At this stage, Daniel’s Law is only being legislated in Queensland, and it remains to be seen whether other jurisdictions will follow suit. While all other Australian states and territories have a sex offender register containing details of convicted child sex offenders, they are only used by law enforcement and are not publicly available.

Despite this, in Western Australia, parents and guardians can make enquiries with police about any person who has unsupervised contact with their child or children under the Community Protection Disclosure Scheme.

The coalition proposed a 12-month trial of a similar scheme but was defeated at the federal election earlier this year, and so it is uncertain whether there is still scope for a public register to come into effect at a national level.

Regardless, Daniel’s Law looks to be one of the most significant and controversial criminal law reforms in recent Australian history. For now, the legislation will continue to enjoy strong public support backed by the force of the Morcombe family’s campaign, but based on the evidence from other jurisdictions, its long-term legacy is uncertain.